Sometimes, you stumble across an intriguing article where you least expect to find it.

This weekend as I was perusing a Vancouver Sun special section on energy, I spotted the byline of Jim Prentice. He's the senior executive vice-president and vice-chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Prentice also happens to be the former Conservative environment minister who announced his resignation from the Stephen Harper government in 2010 because he wanted to spend more time with his family. Coincidentally (or not), this came shortly after he visited Haida Gwaii with environmentalist David Suzuki.

Prentice was a Progressive Conservative before his party was taken over by the more right-wing Canadian Alliance. Its roots were in the old Reform Party of Canada.

Harper, a former policy director of the Reformers, likely went a bit berserk at the sight of his environment minister hobnobbing on The Nature of Things with Suzuki.

Now in his role with the bank, Prentice writes that the objective of developing and exporting Canada's hydrocarbon deposits is a "defining moment” for the country. He used the same language in a speech last month to the Business Council of B.C.

In the article, Prentice never mentions the proposed Enbridge or Kinder Morgan pipelines by name. However, he acknowledges that “the constitutional and legal issues surrounding west coast energy corridors, terminals and shipping are extraordinarily complex”.

One section of Prentice's piece is worth repeating verbatim:

To begin, however, the constitutional obligation to consult with first nations is not a corporate obligation. It is the federal government's responsibility.

Second, the obligation to define an ocean management regime for terminals and shipping on the west coast is not a corporate responsibility. It is the federal government's responsibility.

Finally, these issues cannot be resolved by regulatory fiat—they require negotiation. The real risk is not regulatory rejection but regulatory approval, undermined by subsequent legal challenges and the absence of 'social licence' to operate.

There are billions of dollars at stake for Corporate Canada in the efforts to export raw bitumen through Kitimat and the Port of Vancouver and ship this product via supertankers to Asia.

In the article, Prentice is, in fact, appealing to the Harper government to modify its approach of not seriously negotiating with First Nations.

Prentice also questions the wisdom of ramming the approval of pipelines through the regulatory process by shortening timelines. He appears to believe that this creates a greater risk of pipeline projects being thwarted by legal challenges.

Keep in mind that CIBC has a huge vested interest. First Nations youths have already warned CIBC not to finance Enbridge's Northern Gateway Project.

"CIBC should catch up with Royal Bank and TD Bank, which have already committed to recognize our right to consent," Jasmine Thomas, a 24-year-old member of the Yinka Dene Alliance, said in a news release last year. In other words, CIBC is in the sights of First Nations activists to a greater degree than other banks.

If Prentice's views on the Harper government's duty to negotiate are widely shared within the head offices of other Canadian banks and energy companies—not to mention the Conservative caucus—then the prime minister might not be as secure in his job as most people believe he is.

Prentice is well-regarded within Conservative and corporate circles. He's received lavish press over the years from the country's biggest newspapers. I wouldn't be surprised if Prentice eventually plays a role if there's a palace revolt within Conservative ranks—primarily because Harper's bellicose take-no-prisoners approach may not be achieving all of Bay Street's objectives in the tar sands.

C. Alexander Brown

Jul 1, 2012 at 6:36pm

From the vantage point of Ottawa, and some knowlege of what's going on inside the government, I am totally surprisedat how much dissatisfaction there is inside the federal Consertative Party, from grassroots right up to the highest levels. Yet no group nor indeed even individuals have had the courage to act....!! One person in the know told there is a lot of fear, and that is the reason. In Canada? Unbelievable. We need an Edward R. Morrow moment. It is overdue. Great harm, difficult to reverse and in cases impossible, is being done to our country by an Americanized cuckoo who believes that what Diefenbaker created is no more, is passe, is dead. He is counting on collective cowardice in the (Progressive) Conservative Party to see him through to achieving his goal.

Foxtrot

Catherine Soplet

Jul 1, 2012 at 7:57pm

Budget Bill #C38 strays from the emerging path publicly envisioned by Rotman School of Management, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and other business stakeholders in recent conferences: http://tinyurl.com/86wqf6y My question to Senators: how will megaprojects be insured, moving forward, where environmental regulations and consequences are not in place ?

Teedeer

Jul 1, 2012 at 9:11pm

I read C. Alexander Brown's comments several times before deciding to comment. While I generally like the right-wing approach to politics, as a resident of B.C. the memory if Gordon Campbell ruling both our province and his cabinet with an iron fist is fresh in my mind. I see tough times ahead and the net income to Western Canada from a pipeline to Kitimat sure would go a long way to easing our problems but jamming it down anyones throat could backfire in the worst way at a time when we really need good things to happen. I voted Conservative but we're way overdue for those we elect locally to speak up on the broader issue of the good of all Canadians. If they don't I visualize a pink-tinged P.M. Mulcair when we need him least.

Scott_G

Jul 1, 2012 at 11:18pm

Before people comment about Pipe lines ect.they should disclose if they use Oil products like, Plastic, fuel etc.--Then, I would ask, should we shut off the gas supply to the first nations, and let them chop all their own wood, No more Oil, no more gas for the cars.--Then, would they be willing to use horses to plow feilds etc.--Our food supply would be cut in half and to heat our homes, we would have to cut down all the forests.--There is a whole lot of hot air out there. But not much thinking.

Xtina

Jul 2, 2012 at 10:16am

@Scott G that extreme reasoning you use, that if consumers aren't for radical petroleum then let's just all go back to pre-industrial civilization, is so simplistic. Let's break out the new energy sources, let's pressure governments to put all our efforts into developing less toxic more potent sources of fuel--like our very existence depended on it.